It is said that King Charles, for seventy years, knew substitute player from his mother Elizabeth, for decades what his coronation should have been like. Saturday is the day. The coronation was just an act. Which, in good British fashion, would be packed with religious and constitutional symbolism, attracting a global television audience. But, of course, Charles has been king since his mother died last year and he accepted his new assignment.

Moreover, there is a difference between being a king and being a king. Charles had to show the latter if he wanted to pass the throne to his son. There was grumbling in all fourteen countries where he was head of state.

That was true even before Elizabeth died – the feeling of being ruled by a head of state living thousands of miles away on another continent was simply an anachronism. But it is often considered unwise to start a debate about abolishing the monarchy.

Since his death, the scolding had grown louder. In Antigua and Barbuda, two days after Elizabeth’s death, it was announced that a referendum on abolition of the monarchy would be held within three years.

The Prime Minister of the Republic of Australia has announced that he wants to hold a referendum if his party wins the next election. About 40 per cent of Australians support this form of government. And even in Canada, opinion polls show that 60 percent of Canadians don’t want to swear allegiance to the new king on Saturday. Barbados, which abolished the monarchy without any real effort in November 2021, is a shining example.

At the same time, support for the monarchy in the UK has declined: only three in ten Britons call the royal family “very important”, the lowest number since 1983. Support is particularly low among young people and ethnic minorities: from 18 to 34 years , only 12 percent called the royal family “very important”.

If King Charles wanted to win over his people, a difficult task awaited him. The eggs he had obtained during his several visits to England were literally eggs. Because he has to compete with the image of his mother, for many people the only king they know.

The big question is whether he can. His reign was successful thanks to a zeitgeist that gave institutions greater authority. It worked because at a crucial moment he made the monarchy change – slightly – in line with what society demanded at the time. Success is also because of who he is; no one has ever caught on to his point of view – though sometimes a question or a smile is interpreted that way.

Charles did speak during those seventy years. Filled with modern architecture, passionate about homeopathy, spirituality and organic farming. Regularly wrote handwritten letters to ministers and actively interfered in their policies. Because of that he has to compete with the image that people have of him.

In a constitutional monarchy, the king may not get involved in politics. Can’t a king campaign and unite people at the same time? If Charles wanted to become a successful king, he would keep his mouth shut from now on. It was up to the fourteen countries of which he was head of state to debate their future.